Republicans and their shlongs

In 1776, our nations leaders (many of whom were Christians/religious people) signed a document stating to the world that as human beings, we have a fundamental right to control our own destiny and that the government should stay out of our personal lives when it doesn't have compelling reason to be there. Less than 250 years later, the political party which attracts a much higher percentage of religious people seems to think that we should mandate a code of morality for everyone to follow. Though I happen to agree with the Republican party on some moral issues, I only apply them to my own life and find it absurd that I should want to force my lifestyle on to society as a whole.

Therefore I put forward this thread for discussion of the Republican party and of all of its *members* (pun intended). I realized that I have yet to meet a Republican with a decent shlong (and I live in a vastly Republican-dominated area.)

Gold Member

politics only appeals to those who cannot derive satisfaction from their lives in normal, healthy ways - obviously including sex. it stands to reason that its most committed adherents are sexually insecure and/or inadequate in any number of ways, of which i suspect dick size is probably the LEAST disturbing.

conservatism is the politics of fear and greed, so there's likely to be an even higher number of sexually-dysfunctional basketcases among their ranks than other "ideologies."

Therefore I put forward this thread for discussion of the Republican party and of all of its *members* (pun intended). I realized that I have yet to meet a Republican with a decent shlong (and I live in a vastly Republican-dominated area.)

Click to expand...

But you're only 10% gay how many "scholongs" have you met :33:

I doubt, actually I know, there's any correlation between penis size and political affiliation.

COLJohn said:

Ann Coulter has a big dick.

Click to expand...

Why John! I suspect there's a difference between being one and having one.

politics only appeals to those who cannot derive satisfaction from their lives in normal, healthy ways - obviously including sex. it stands to reason that its most committed adherents are sexually insecure and/or inadequate in any number of ways, of which i suspect dick size is probably the LEAST disturbing.

conservatism is the politics of fear and greed, so there's likely to be an even higher number of sexually-dysfunctional basketcases among their ranks than other "ideologies."

Click to expand...

You know Dr. Rock, I had your posts hidden for quite a while because of how negative they were, but this is a very, very intelligent and insightful comment. Kudos to you!

i consider myself to be a republican/libertarian and i have a big cock. so HA!

Click to expand...

Republican/libertarian - that's a hoot!
Don't mean to start a flame war but seeing those two words together makes me smile.
Conservative/libertarian I could understand!
But dang... the debt, the wars, the "Homeland Security" graft, the military-contractor corruption (oh yes, how classically conservative these all must be...), the encroachment of The Law upon The Uterus... about the only libertarian thing here is the (hugely unprogressive) tax cuts.
Anyway my bitchiness is the make a point that "Republican" means what Republicans are like now (not in decades past)... which is anything but conservative, and even less so libertarian.

Republican/libertarian - that's a hoot!
Don't mean to start a flame war but seeing those two words together makes me smile.
Conservative/libertarian I could understand!
But dang... the debt, the wars, the "Homeland Security" graft, the military-contractor corruption (oh yes, how classically conservative these all must be...), the encroachment of The Law upon The Uterus... about the only libertarian thing here is the (hugely unprogressive) tax cuts.
Anyway my bitchiness is the make a point that "Republican" means what Republicans are like now (not in decades past)... which is anything but conservative, and even less so libertarian.

Click to expand...

i was gonna say that but didnt feel like starting something ... the government is larger than ever and has more laws, regulation, & debt than ever ... with basically republican control ... all very un libertarian things ... grrr

Less than 250 years later, the political party which attracts a much higher percentage of religious people seems to think that we should mandate a code of morality for everyone to follow.

Click to expand...

That is the underlying basis of all law - a common (more-or-less) sense of what is right vs. what is wrong. Law is little more than a codification of that sense. The sources of that sense may be shared historical experience, philosophical cogitation (anything from Plato to, say, Baccaria), religion, or - despicably - mere convenience.

The Republicans feel somewhat more strongly than do the current crop of Democrats that one of the more important functions of society and of government is to protect the weak or helpless. This is the philosophical underpinning of the recent excitement over the Schiavo case (the "helpless" in that case being a woman in a coma), and of course the intractable problem of abortion (the "helpless" being a fetus - can't get much more helpless than that!). Some years ago, the "helpless" were all persons held in bondage in the USA - back then the Democrats were the "slave" party, and the Republicans were the party of the Emancipation Proclamation. Never willing to give in, even after the devastation of war, the Democrats afterwards became the party of Jim Crow (as those of you with political memories going back to the days of the "Southern Democrats" know well).

Now I'm not a registered Republican (and I sure as hell will never register Democrat in the near future, not with the crop of Democratic shits currently in office), but I'll put my masculine appendage up against that of any Democratic bedwetting pantywaist anytime.

In 1776, our nations leaders (many of whom were Christians/religious people) signed a document stating to the world that as human beings, we have a fundamental right to control our own destiny and that the government should stay out of our personal lives when it doesn't have compelling reason to be there. Less than 250 years later, the political party which attracts a much higher percentage of religious people seems to think that we should mandate a code of morality for everyone to follow. Though I happen to agree with the Republican party on some moral issues, I only apply them to my own life and find it absurd that I should want to force my lifestyle on to society as a whole.

Therefore I put forward this thread for discussion of the Republican party and of all of its *members* (pun intended). I realized that I have yet to meet a Republican with a decent shlong (and I live in a vastly Republican-dominated area.)

Click to expand...

Most of the founding fathers were Diests, not actually Christians as we would think of Christians today. These people were products of the Age of Enlightenment. The Puritans of New England who were around at the same time, on the other hand, had no problem with the idea of central authority imposing its moral judgments on others. re: Salem witch trials. Personally I don't think either the Puritans of the 18th century nor the moral minority bible thumpers of today really understand the religion they profess to be a part of. Of course Christianity is riddled with contradictions and as a result those who try to adapt its teachings to their own lives invariably just pick and choose the parts that they happen to agree with. My personal favorite parts of the Bible are all those that encourage tolerance, loving your neighbor, acknowledging personal hypocrisy, humility, and not judging others lest ye be judged. All the parts that Pat Robertson enjoys skipping over.

Gold Member

Where did that link to a pic of Cheney go ?
The one that showed quite an impressive schlong down his pants leg.

Click to expand...

You can find it by doing a Google-Images search. Just type in
"Dick-Cheney-Bulge". It should get you a link. BTW, I've read
the thread about his bulge and I must say that I believe it IS
his "stuff"! Some have suggested that it is a "coloscopy"? bag.
I saw the event where the picture was taken on C-SPAN.It
was during the 2004 campaign and it was at an ice cream shop.
The VP was sitting on a concrete planter or something, eating
his ice cream cone. He was talking to some people and you
could see his bulge quite clearly! I think it was mostly his balls,
not much of a "dick" could be seen. He was swinging open and
closed his legs quite a bit and it was definitely a turn on!:redface::wink:

Gold Member

That is the underlying basis of all law - a common (more-or-less) sense of what is right vs. what is wrong. Law is little more than a codification of that sense. The sources of that sense may be shared historical experience, philosophical cogitation (anything from Plato to, say, Baccaria), religion, or - despicably - mere convenience.

The Republicans feel somewhat more strongly than do the current crop of Democrats that one of the more important functions of society and of government is to protect the weak or helpless. This is the philosophical underpinning of the recent excitement over the Schiavo case (the "helpless" in that case being a woman in a coma), and of course the intractable problem of abortion (the "helpless" being a fetus - can't get much more helpless than that!). Some years ago, the "helpless" were all persons held in bondage in the USA - back then the Democrats were the "slave" party, and the Republicans were the party of the Emancipation Proclamation. Never willing to give in, even after the devastation of war, the Democrats afterwards became the party of Jim Crow (as those of you with political memories going back to the days of the "Southern Democrats" know well).

Now I'm not a registered Republican (and I sure as hell will never register Democrat in the near future, not with the crop of Democratic shits currently in office), but I'll put my masculine appendage up against that of any Democratic bedwetting pantywaist anytime.

Click to expand...

Wow! Feel better now?

You seem to know history and that's admirable, but you don't know much about the present or near history do you? If you did, you'd know that Republicans of today are the Democrats of the past! No Democrat of today would be in support of the things you've mentioned of them from the past. Most Republicans wouldn't, I'm sure, either! You must realize however that Republicans of today don't mind getting support from those that DO still hold these views! BJU:wink:, the pigs who spread the stuff in SC about John McCain's adoptive daughter, Trent Lott saying the U.S. would've been better off with a segregationist Strom Thurmond as President and the Republicans in Congress who, just this week, tried to weaken certain provisions in the reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, should tell you which party of today believes in equality and the rights of the "weak or helpless"! Also the Republicans who you think are so concerned for the "weak and helpless" certainly don't seem to give a shit about the poor! Do they?

I am a liberal and Democrat personally opposed to abortion--but still Pro-Choice. I think your assertions that Democrats are any less interested in protecting the most vulnerable among us to be upsurd! Abortion is a horrible decision, I'm sure, for a woman to make. I think it should be left up to her however. If a woman decides that the best thing would be to end the baby's life--she would, more than anyone, have the best feeling of what is right. I personally think abortion is a tragedy and should only happen in the worst situations you can think of. Incest or the life of the mother are examples. Still I don't think the right to decide belongs to anyone but the mother! In cases other than those extreme ones, I would say what Mother Teresa said: give ME your unwanted babies! I as a gay man probably will never have kids of my own. I would like kids and most likely will adopt but those Republicans, while caring so much for babies, don't want the most unwanted ones going to gay parents! Isn't that so caring? Hopefully a ban on gays adopting won't ever happen in my state.

Also, a woman who is in a coma and "dead" for all practical reasons should NOT have been a political football for either political party! The ones who made it that however, were: 1. her parents and siblings 2. their lawyers and "religous advisors" 3. Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida 4. Tom Delay and other Republican members of Congress! Her family's involvement in trying to keep her alive was understandable! I don't think the way they went about it was all that respectable however! I'm sure that their laywers were responsible for most of it though. The politicians on the Republican side were shameful in their involvement. The Democrats should have known better than to get involved at all. The country figured out what was really going on very quickly. Those "Democratic shits" should have just let the Republicans look like the fools and oppurtunists that they were and are! Still in this society of laws--Michael Schiavo WAS the one who had the right to make that decision! I wouldn't want to be in a vegetative state--but I know I would never decide to take any of my loved ones off life support if THEY were! Once again these are terrible, complicated and hard decisions. The last thing anybody would need is for politicians and the rest of the country wieghing in on what they should do!

As to the point of this thread, as a liberal "pantywaist", I could care less if Republicans are hung or not! As a gay man however, I must admit that I AM attracted to some. President Bush is a good looking man and can look VERY good in jeans! I also like Sen. John Thune of SD. I guess that I'm like guys who say they would fuck a girl if only they would shut the fuck up! I'd suck President Bush and Sen. Thune, if only I could duct tape their mouths closed!
:wink::redface: